Milam v. State

• Decision Date: 10 April 1912
• Citation: 146 S.W. 185
• Parties: MILAM v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 185

146 S.W. 185

MILAM v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1912.

Appeal from Dallas County Court at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.

George Milam was convicted for keeping a house in which spirituous, etc., liquors were sold without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.

G. Q. Youngblood, of Dallas, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was prosecuted and convicted, under articles 496 and 500, P. C. (new), for unlawfully keeping and being concerned in keeping a certain house in which spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors were sold and kept for sale, without first having obtained a license to retail such liquors, and his penalty fixed at a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail.

The appellant has only three bills of exceptions. By the first, he shows that the state introduced Joe Davis and asked him this question: "On the 5th day of August, what time in the day was it that you were there? A. Well, we went to work at 12 o'clock in the day, and worked until 12 o'clock at night, and continued around the place from 12 o'clock in the daytime until 12 o'clock at night." The appellant objected to said question, because it was leading, and there was no allegation in the information of any offense having been committed on August 5th. That is, in substance, the full of the bill. The second is that the state introduced Robert Hamlin as a witness and asked him, "How many times will you say you bought beer from him? A. Three times, anyway." Appellant objected, because said question was leading and did not confine the answer of the witness to sales of beer alleged in the information in point of time. That is, in substance, the whole of this bill. The court, in approving it, qualified it by stating: "The state (witness) had previously stated that he had bought beer from defendant, and the state asked this question to fix the number of times he had bought beer." The other bill is that the state introduced the following testimony, to wit: Lee Thompson and Joe Davis were allowed to testify that a federal liquor license was on wall at Milam's place; that said license was issued to one Brewer; and that same was a live license. Appellant objected, and moved the court to strike the same from the records, unless the state showed defendant had some connection with said federal license. The court overruled said objection and motion and admitted said evidence. Clearly neither of these bills are sufficient to require this court to pass upon the questions attempted to be raised. Conger v. State, 140 S. W. 1121, and authorities there cited. However, the character of testimony here objected to was clearly admissible in this character of case. Tacchini v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 55, 126...